The first one, for reasons I've already given and which you have failed to even attempt to rebut -- or even actually disagree with, other than issuing gradeschool taunts.
An arguably 45 degree ricochet off a tree branch, that goes another two hundred yards is sheer 'magical' supposition, and you would know it, if you're a rifleman.
[It's not, nor have I even attempted to "prove" that ["that Oswald was alone"] in this thread. ] Lie.. Accuse me of lying one more time without cause, and we'll take this to the moderators. I suggest you reign yourself in a bit.
How whimpy can you get? -- You accused me of "completly untrue nonsense" at #270. I replied in kind: -- since:
-- You bet me a thousand dollars you could prove portions of Spectors lone gunman theory.
Are you truly unable to grasp that our making a bet over *one* point in the Warren Commission's scenario is not synonymous with necessarily arguing for *all* of them? Get a grip. Nice try, but what I actually specifically bet you on was whether you were blowing smoke when you claimed that "no one has ever duplicated such a scenario" -- the "scenario" being hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles similar to the JFK shooting with a bolt action rifle of the same type. I offered to bet you on that, you foolishly accepted and named a figure for the bet of $1000, and you lost by being shown that at several times recreations by different groups have *indeed* easily equaled that performance.
"Completely untrue nonsense", as you never proved that the "scenario" of hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles comparable to the JFK shooting was ever duplicated. You tossed off some posted opinions as your proof, and then clownishly proclaimed victory, as you do again here:
You lose, pay up and stop dancing, it not only makes you look silly, it makes you look grossly dishonorable. Don't accept bets you can't win, and if you do, pay up when you lose. You still owe FreeRepublic that thousand dollars, and I'm not going to let you welsh on it.
Actually 'ichy', seeing you were unable to prove your theory, you owe FR.. Big time.
Dance, dodge, misrepresent... Is this the best you can do?
How many times must I say it? Prove your point..
29.4 degrees, but who's counting? Overstating the angle by 50% does not do you credit.
that goes another two hundred yards is sheer 'magical' supposition,
...because...? Oh, right, just because you say so. Sorry, not convinced, especially since you've been wrong about so many easy facts.
Like the distance, for example -- it was no more than 140 yards. Closer to 130.
Is it truly your contention that a rifle bullet can't hit a hard surface at the very shallow incident angle of 14.7 degrees and skip off it with enough remaining velocity to travel another 130 yards? If so, I've got *another* bet for you -- name your amount, and I'll personally make the demonstration for you. Be sure the amount of the bet will cover my round-trip airfare. How about double or nothing on the last bet?
and you would know it, if you're a rifleman.
I *do* know it, I *am* a rifle owner and shooter, and that's how I know that you're talking out of your hind end.
But don't just take my word for it: Here for example are 9 news stories of bullets still having enough power after a ricochet to *kill* the people they hit (or in one case, moose) -- or are you going to be goofy enough to argue that a bullet going fast enough to kill isn't fast enough to travel 140 yards?
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/2013555.htmlhttp://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article2DE0831A8B444EA4AC1581C4CF8BEB47.asp
http://users.mildura.net.au/users/marshall/advn/advn005.htm
http://www.bluestarfamilies.com/Pic_Fallen_Soldiers_SC.htm
http://www.albertaoutfitting.com/moose_photographs.html
http://www.cowboymercantile.com/articles/article1.htm
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/oct/19/weekend/20031019wek2.html
How whimpy can you get? -- You accused me of "completly untrue nonsense" at #270.
No, I did not. I said that correcting "completely untrue nonsense" is what motivates me to care about these threads. It's interesting, however, that you would presume that I was talking specifically about *you*. Do you feel that the shoe fits?
Furthermore, when I call something nonsense, I explain *why* it's nonsense, *and* that does not count as an accusation about the poster's motives. They don't need to be lying, they can simply be mistaken.
*You*, on the other hand, accused me specifically of issuing a "lie", which is an accusation of knowingly and dishonestly posting a falsehood. Furthermore, you did it without demonstrating that my statement was even incorrect, much less knowingly incorrect.
*That* is why you had better learn the difference and conduct yourself with more maturity.
since: -- You bet me a thousand dollars you could prove portions of Spectors lone gunman theory.
Why do you keep misrepresenting the actual terms of the bet? The bet was specifically about whether anyone has successfully recreated the shooting performance under similar conditions. You had falsely claimed that no one had, when in fact many have.
Trying to divert the issue to proving or disproving anything about any other person's larget scenario is a red herring on your part, and opens the door for you to drag in all sorts of side issues irrelevant to the specific claim you had made which I challenged. Stick to the subject of the bet.
as you never proved that the "scenario" of hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles comparable to the JFK shooting was ever duplicated.
Yes, I did. Don't try to squirm out of it now.
You tossed off some posted opinions as your proof, and then clownishly proclaimed victory, as you do again here:
Translation: I posted citations to specific tests detailing the nature of the tests and with sufficient information for you to look them up if you doubt my description. Are you going to try to tell us with a straight face that *this* wasn't specific enough for you to determine the nature of the tests, or look them up to find more detail if you chose?
[From my post #127:] For example, CBS reconstructed the shooting for a 1975 [typo, should be 1967] documentary. Eleven volunteers took three shots each at a moving target using a Carcano rifle, without even doing any prior practice on that model of rifle. Their times ranges from 4.1 seconds (total) to slightly more than 6 seconds, with the average being 5.6 seconds and 2 hits out of 3. Furthermore, the House Select Committee in 1977 did a reconstruction and found that their test shooter could hit all targets with 1.66 seconds between shots.What more do you want, for me to pull up a chair for you and help you figure out how to load a videotape of them? Do your own homework if you want to start casting about for excuses why the recreations weren't "good" enough, so that you can try to get yourself off this hook by some lawyerly weaseling.
Oh hell, here's more detailed information for you from the HSCA recreation for you, maybe you'll give it up... The tests were conducted from an elevated platform, at targets situated at distances of 143, 165, and 266 feet from the tower, the presumed distances of the three JFK shots. Furthermore:
"Each officer fired two series of three shots and Cornwell and I eac fired one series of two shots.As for the CBS test ("CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report", a four part documentary first aired on June 25 1967), one of their volunteers, Howard Donahue, not only made three shots in less than six seconds with a Carcano, he HIT WITH ALL THREE SHOTS. The CBS test was even done through a window 60 feet up, not just a raised platform, at a target on a moving sled. I'm sorry, what's that you were saying about "no one" ever duplicating the JFK shooting?The test established the following:
The weapon can be quite accurately fired more rapidly using open iron sights than the FBI tests in 1963 indicated, where the telescopic sight was used. For example, Officer Masson, during one test series, hit the body silhouette at 143 and 165 feet on the first two shots, and missed the head portion of the silhouette at 266 feet on the third shot by approximately one inch (1"), taking 2.0 seconds between shots 1 and 2, and a total of less than 5 seconds for all three shots. Two other series, oen by officer Smith and another, again, by Officer Masson, were fired in which only 1.9 seconds elapsed between two shots, and one of the three shots scored a "kill".
...
It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim" if not carefully "sight" it, on the target on each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhoutte. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhoutte by approximately 2".There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.3 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5."
The fact remains that you claimed that "no one" has "ever duplicated" the speed and accuracy of the three JFK shots.
The fact remains that you foolishly accepted a bet on your inadvisably broad claim.
The fact remains that multiple tests *have* "duplicated such a scenario" successfully. In fact, the best times of both the CBS reconstruction *and* the HSCA reconstruction beat the times (while equaling the accuracy) of even the most *restrictive* conspiracy scenarios (i.e., the ones which left the shooter the least amount of time for the shots).
So the fact remains that you were wrong, and you lost the bet.
The fact remains that you still owe FreeRepublic the thousand dollars.
How many times must I say it? Prove your point..
How many times must I prove the point before you'll stop dancing around it?